The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ

PART 0: The Purpose of the Group and Terminology

0) What's this fack thing?
1) What is "on topic" for this newsgroup?
2) What's with all the acronyms?
3) What is diceless role-playing?
4) What do you mean by "plot" and "plotting"?
5) What about all these other terms?
6) What are these "narrative stances" that people refer to?
7) What are the campaign "axes"?
8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?

Part I of this FAQ explains the "threefold model," Part II deals
with "plot", and Part III deals with "diceless roleplaying."

WARNING: Most of the content of the FAQ was written in 1997, and
has not been significantly updated since that time. Thus, much of
the material here might not be relevant for current discussion.

0) What's this fack thing?

"FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Questions". This is a
regularly posted document intended to introduce newcomers to
common terminology and issues in this forum.

1) What is "on topic" for this newsgroup?

This newsgroup is about comparative discussion of various
role-playing systems and styles -- their merits and flaws, how well
they work in different situations, etc. Until there is consensus
otherwise, this includes all styles of role-play, including
live-action -- just make sure to label your posts clearly.

Thus, GURPS versus HERO would technically be on-topic. However,
most of what has gone on is more detailed discussion of differing
styles and features of games. For example: "Do you prefer to have
rules and traits which govern a character's personality?" or
"What are the consequences of timelining a plot in advance?"

You should try to avoid asking or stating that a game or
technique is generically "better" or "worse". The one thing which
is strikingly clear from discussion here is that different people
prefer different things in their games. Try to keep this in mind.

The other thing is to be careful about is misunderstood
generalizations. Someone might say that "plotted" games are
restrictive, and you respond that he is wrong -- they are inherently
more flexible. Most likely, he is referring to a different type
of game when he says "plotted" than you think of when you say
"plotted".

2) What's with all the acronyms?

POV: "Point of View"
IC: "In-Character Stance", i.e. the state of thinking from your
character's POV
OOC: "Out Of Character"
SOD: "Suspension of Disbelief"
DIP: "Develop-In-Play", referring to players who only have a rough
character sketch which is only filled out during the campaign
DAS: "Develop-At-Start", i.e. players who write a detailed character
background/personality by the time the campaign begins
d-b: "Description-Based", i.e. using qualitative verbal description
rather than game mechanics
PM: "Personality Mechanics," any mechanic with the aim to help
simulate a character's personality (which can be advisory
or coercive)
plus more general ones like-
PC: "Player Character" - usually handled by a player
NPC: "Non-Player Character" - usually handled by the GM
YMMV: "your mileage may vary"
IMHO: "in my humble opinion"
CF: "Castle Falkenstein", a card-using Victorian fantasy game
OTE: "Over the Edge", a dice-using freeform conspiracy game
RM: "Rolemaster"

3) What is diceless role-playing?

Technically, diceless role-playing is simply any RPG which
does not use any randomizers like dice or cards. There are
currently four published diceless RPG "systems", including
The _Amber_ DPRG, by Phage Press; _Theatrix_, by Backstage Press;
_Persona_, by Tesarta Industries, Inc.; and _Epiphany_, by BTRC.

Some games use non-numerical randomizers, such as _Everway_'s
Vision Cards, and are thus not "diceless" in this sense.
These are also distinct from most "dice-using" games, however.
Also, some dice-using games have notes on how to run the game
in a diceless fashion, such as FUDGE by Grey Ghost Games and
_Witchcraft_ by Myrmidon Press.

However, you should *not* assume that all diceless is like it is
described in these games. "Diceless" encompasses a wide variety
of playing styles, ranging from interactive storytelling to
competitive simulation-style games.

For more information on this, see part III of this FAQ.

4) What do you mean by "plot" and "plotting"?

We don't. :-) By that, I mean that there are many different
meanings of the term "plot" floating around: at least three and
probably more. For more information, see Part II of this FAQ.
For now, I will outline three common usages:

Simply a bare sketch of a goal for the PC's and challenges to
them reaching that goal. This is sometimes called a
"plot-premise" or "line of tension".

A GM-planned sequence of events based on what she expects the
PC's to do -- called a "plot-plan" or "preplanned plot".

Just what happens in the game, regardless of how or even
whether the GM planned it. This is sometimes called
"plot-story" or simply "story".

5) What about all these other terms?

"group contract": The set of conventions the players and GM agree
on: including rule system, but also issues like "The GM will
fudge things so PCs won't die pointless deaths", or "Pulp genre
conventions take precedence over common sense", or even
"Don't let the cat in while we play: she bites legs."
"metagame": dealing with concerns of the players and GM, as opposed
to the characters in the gameworld. Examples of metagame
concerns could include "spotlight time", plot scripting, and
who brought the munchies.
"intra-game": dealing solely with matters within the gameworld.
This would include a character's plans and actions, the
environment, etc.
"three-fold": A model describing games as a balance of Dramatist,
Simulationist, and Gamist concerns -- i.e. someone might
describe themselves as mostly Gamist with some Dramatist
influence, but not very Simulationist. Also known as the
"triangle model" (for a pictorial diagram of this).
See part I of this FAQ for more information on this topic.
"dramatist": is the esthetic of games which try to make the
action into a satisfying and coherent storyline.
(See Part I.)
"gamist": is the esthetic of games which try to set up a fair
challenge for the *players* (as opposed to the PC's). The
challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries,
social manipulation, etc. (See Part I.)
"simulationist": is the esthetic of games where effort is made
to not let meta-game concerns during play affect in-game
resolution of events. That is, a fully simulationist GM will
not fudge results to save PC's or to save her plot.
(See Part I.)
"immersion": This is a term for trying to cut out all meta-game
information and view things from the Point-of-View of your
character (or for GM's just look at the game world facts).
The player tries to feel what the PC is feeling, and develops
a complex intuitive model of the PC. Some immersive players
are "closed" to the GM or mechanics telling them what the PC
is feeling, because that interferes with their internal model.
Others are "open" to such external input.
"mechanic": A formal method of resolution, which need not be
numerical (i.e. Plot Points and Drama Deck cards are mechanics)
but must be specific. A statement like "low roll good, lower
roll better" is not considered a mechanic unless it is spelled
out just how low is good. On the other hand, a statement like
"a 02 or less is a critical" is a mechanic.
There has been some discussion over what exactly constitutes
a mechanic: until that is resolved I am keeping the above
description, but direct people to ongoing discussion.
"mechanics-light, mechanicless": Games which have very few to no
mechanics (sometimes known as "freeform", but this term is
less clear). _Over the Edge_ is mechanics-light, for example.
A game using the rule of "GM Decides" is a "mechanicless" game.
(Technically, one can say it has a single mechanic, but the
term "mechanicless" still stands for this type of game.)
"non-numerical": a game or game mechanic which does not use
meta-game numbers. Non-numerical randomizers could be judging
the result of an action by the theme of a tarot card drawn.
Non-numerical stats would be text description without any
associated game number.
"spotlight time": The amount of time a player/PC is the center of
attention in the group.
"firewalling": This is the practice of not letting Out-of-Character
information you know as a player affect your decisions in play,
which can apply to both the GM and the player.
"abstraction": This is substituting a simpler game handling for
something that in the game-world is more complex. In other
words, the GM might say - `You manage to pick the lock' rather
than describing how each tumbler was handled.
"script immunity": This is part of the group contract under which
certain characters are protected from dying at a metagame level.
For example, the GM might fudge so as not to kill PC's unless
they do something stupid. This might also be handled by
mechanics such as "Fortune Points" which players spend to save
their PC's. This can also apply to important NPC's (such as
villians in _James Bond_, who can use "Survival Points" to
always get away.)
"Fair Play": This is another group assumption -- that the GM will
present problems which are challenging but solvable by the
PC's. If the players act intelligently, it is expected that
the PC's should succeed and be rewarded. This is often an
integral part of "Gamist" contracts (see above).
"assumption clash": When the GM's understanding of how the game-
world works conflicts with a player's assumptions. For example,
as a player you might think that your tough fighter can kill a
charging boar with his sword with little fear of injury, while
your GM thinks that a boar can easily ignore any sword swing
and will break both his legs. You say "I crouch and prepare
to meet its rush" and get severely mauled.
It doesn't matter who is *right* in this case -- the
problem is that their understanding differs. The player are not
privy to information her character would know, and thus she made
decisions which simply didn't make sense in the game world.
"interactive literature": a term for various forms of Live Action
Role-playing Games (LARP's), which involve the interactive
creation of a story. Not everything the characters do is
neccessarily acted out, but they share some qualities: There
are almost never NPC's, so both protagonists and antagonists
are run by players. The players generally wander around a
large area -- a Judge/GM is not always on hand, and bulky
rule are rarely carried. Thus, the resolution mechanics must
be minimal.

6) What are these "narrative stances" that people refer to?

This was first formulated by Kevin Hardwick and Sarah Kahn, and
was so useful that it immediately became part of the jargon of
the group. These stances are not precisely defined, but these
are rough summaries:
[A] Actor Stance
The Actor Stance is the one in which the player contemplates
what she can do to portray her character more effectively to the
other participants in the game. That is, you use it when you
have already fixed what your character is going to do -- and
your concern is primarily portraying her to others.
This is different from Author stance because it is not
concerned with character development -- instead of writing the
character or trying to think *as* the character, the player
consciously trying to portray the character as defined. (i.e.
"Michael has a weakness for women, so I'll say pick-up lines
to this NPC.")
[B] Audience Stance
The position from which the player observes, enjoys, and
evaluates the game or aspects of it as himself, rather than as his
character. This is also a meta-game stance, as it refers to the
*player's* viewing and interpretation of the game, which may be
very different from the character's. This stance is the stance
from which things like dramatic irony or historical accuracy are
judged. It is also the stance adopted whenever the player
witnesses an in-game event of which his character is utterly
unaware.
[C] Author Stance
The position from which the player evaluates the game with an
eye towards changing it or affecting its development -- either
through her character or possibly through the world itself. The
player adopts this when consciously writing new parts of her
character's background, for example. Usually it is associated
with the player watching the development of the game, and trying
to spice it up by throwing in new twists (i.e. "Hey, we've just
gotten involved with pirates -- why don't I write in that my
character's ex-girlfriend was killed in a pirate attack!")
Thus, the player is trying to stay consistent with the
character as defined, but isn't thinking *as* the character.
[D] In-Character Stance (IC) or Immersion Stance
The view of the game from within the inside of the game world
and its reality, usually from within the mind of a player
character living within that reality. The player is thinking
*as* the character -- he doesn't acknowledge Out-of-Character
(OOC) information and tries to concentrate on what the character
is experiencing. In theory, acting In-Character becomes second
nature -- the player does not look at his character sheet and see
"Weakness for Women". Rather, he hears the GM describe a woman
and reacts by saying a pass at her.
There are a lot of conflicting claims regarding this stance.
Everyone agrees that it is difficult to get into. Once there,
some people talk about having different emotional responses or
different personality types (see below). In general, this is
said to take much preparation effort to drop into -- making the
character feel real in your mind. It also is fragile:
distractions can drop you out, making you uncertain of what the
character would "really" do.
[?] ``Deep In-Character Stance'' (``Deep IC'')
This is a possible deeper version of IC stance, where the
player begins to "channel" her character and just *be* that
person. In theory, this is likened to certain mask work or
experiences of spiritual possession -- that is, even though the
character is not an external entity, the player feels as though
something else were taking over, and she is unable to control
what the character is doing in the game.
Of course, in any RPG, multiple stances may be taken. Often
players will have a preference for one stance over another, but
still a player will usually switch back and forth. Some claim that
this is done quickly and effortlessly -- others claim that certain
stances (mostly In-Character) require much time and effort to drop
into.
Much discussion hinges on how to encourage and facilitate
people's preferences in these regards. For those who want to
play in the "In-Character"(IC) stance, it is important not to have
metagame distractions. They need to be able to get as close as
possible to their character's Point-of-View (POV).

7) What are the campaign "Axes"? (as submitted by Rodney Payne)

This is a concept for "campaign classification" developed by Leon
von Stauber and Rodney Payne. From the initial concept, Leon had
created a large number of axes on which campaigns could be classified:
Plot, World, Drama, Realism, Romanticism, Conflict, Authorship,
Direction, Mechanism. His article is on the web at:

A limitation of this approach is that it requires diametrically
opposed tendencies. The opposites of drama or realism or such
are contentious points under discussion. An important distinction
concerns "direction"...

DIRECTED/NATURAL

A *directed* GM is one who makes a conscious effort during game play
to guide the campaign development. This doesn't mean that she has a
fixed plot which she is sticking to, however. There is also purely
off-the-cuff directing: guiding the campaign towards higher drama
on the spur of the moment, or perhaps just keeping the action moving.

A *natural* GM is one who simply responds to players actions in a
manner most consistent with his conception of the world, and perhaps
his understanding of the group contract. He leaves dealing with
meta-game issues like drama or pacing up to the group, rather than
taking a leadership role.

8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?

Many times the discussion in .advocacy seems purely academic,
unrelated to any practical issues of actually running or playing in
a game. However, some of us feel that by some analysis of the
techniques and styles which occur in RPG's, we can help improve actual
game play. Some possibilities:

Creating tools - like the questionaire in Part II of the FAQ -
to help GM's and player's figure out their style differences
and reach a compromise (or simply avoid playing together if
their styles are too different).

Give GM's and player's new ideas for methods and style of
play, which may help them to stretch out to different and
interesting variations.

Analyze what techniques work best with what styles -- i.e.
pro's and con's based on classification. (i.e. If you have
Develop-In-Play players, then explicitly announced campaign
themes might not be that useful).

Allow for easier discussion when different GM's or players
are comparing notes, by creating a common vocabulary of how
to refer to certain features.